Grace is NOT unmerited favor!

[justbyfaith]

No, some sins are not written in God's laws. Those that are are sins unto death; those that are not are sins not unto death. Two types. Jesus is only our Advocate once He has empowered you with His Holy Spirit for sins not unto death, but not for sins written in the Law which require repentance. 1 John 5:16-17

Talk to you later. Read my posts.

It is written in the law that we must wear tzitzit and tallit (tassels on your garments) and tefilin (phylacteries on your arms and head).

Is someone who fails to do this committing a mortal sin?

Is a man eternally condemned except he become an orthodox Jew?

 

[justbyfaith]

Read my posts.

I have already read them; I don't need to read them again. If I disagreed then I disagreed. If I agreed then I agreed. Reading them again is not going to change my pov.

 

[Candidus]

Jesus paid the exact penalty of each one of our finite lives being in hell for all of eternity; in that He is infinite in nature, being God; and therefore was able to die for all sins and still come out on the other side resurrected from the dead. It was not possible that He should be held down by the grave according to Acts of the Apostles 2:24.

You quoted nothing of Scripture to validate your conjecture of payment of an exact penalty. You do offer the predictable dodge of implying that since the character or offering of Jesus is infinite, God somehow now does not have to have an "exact penalty paid." Utter nonsense.

It has been explained as the following:

A community had a law that cars could go 70 mile per hour on the freeway at a certain place. But it was discovered that a certain, endangered snail lived in that habitat, so a law was made that people could only go 5 mi/hr. on that same stretch of road. Now there was a $50,000 fine for going over 5 mi/hr on that road.

A judge's son, who had not heard of the law, violated the law and was brought before his father for judgment.

The judge promptly proceeded to execute the fine of $50,000; and if the son could not pay the fine, he would have to do jail time until the debt was paid.

The judge then stepped down from the bench, took out his checkbook, and proceeded to write out a check for $50,000 on behalf of his son.

In this way the judge retained his status as a just judge and also was able to show mercy to his son.

But this has nothing to do with the claim of Penal Substitution. Jesus is the one you claim must pay the fine. The Father is the Judge. Nowhere do we see in Scripture does it show the Father pulling out His checkbook to make up for the deficiency of the payment of the Son.

Forgiveness is provided for in the penalty being paid at the Cross.

You claim that God must have His pound of flesh. Therefore it is not forgiveness, nor is salvation by God's mercy; but it is earned by payment.

We have all sinned (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:10); and therefore there is something to forgive.

Which is sufficient proof that Penal Substitution is not Scriptural.

 

[Mayflower]

Grace is unmerited favor. But it isn't just covered. Sin is completely cast as far as the east is from the west. We are washed as white as snow. Praise God for that!!!

 

[mjrhealth]

Grace is unmerited favor. But it isn't just covered. Sin is completely cast as far as the east is from the west. We are washed as white as snow. Praise God for that!!!

Something like that.

Have faith in God, He doesnt leave things incomplete. It is finished.

 

[Mayflower]

Something like that.

Have faith in God, He doesnt leave things incomplete. It is finished.

See I didnt like the wording, but didn't seem right choosing other either, because Grace is unmerited favor. I just see it as erased completely rather then using white out. That is grace.

 

[justbyfaith]

Utter nonsense.

See 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21.

But this has nothing to do with the claim of Penal Substitution. Jesus is the one you claim must pay the fine. The Father if the Judge. Nowhere do we see in Scripture does it show the Father pulling out His checkbook to make up for the deficiency of the payment of the Son.

From my understanding Jesus is the Father. But even if He isn't, the Son could make the payment just as easily as the father/judge in a situation where a son broke the law. It would simply be a payment made by Big Brother rather than Dad.

You claim that God must have His pound of flesh. Therefore it is not forgiveness, nor is salvation by God's mercy; but it is earned by payment.

Forgiveness is provided for by the Cross. Yes, justice is satisfied. You would have a forgiveness where justice is not satisfied; in such a case God would not be just in forgiving the sinner; and you would have a different complaint.

Which is sufficient proof that Penal Substitution is not Scriptural.

I feel really bad for you; because Penal Substitution is the gospel by which we are saved: and in rejecting it, you are rejecting salvation itself. See Jeremiah 13:17.

 

[Candidus]

From my understanding Jesus is the Father. But even if He isn't, the Son could make the payment just as easily as the father/judge in a situation where a son broke the law. It would simply be a payment made by Big Brother rather than Dad.

Since Penal Substitution is in your mind "the gospel," then I am sure that the Bible would tell us what was "paid," and who was "paid."

You say that the demands of Justice are unbending and precise, and then change the rules when it became obvious that Jesus did not suffer the exact and precise substitution. It is as if God took the piece of straw out of His mouth, spit on the ground and said... "Awe Shucks! He tried so hard!" Then God the Father placed His fat thumb on the scales of justice and said, "It looks good enough for me!"

I mean, really? How far must God go outside of the requirements of Retributive Justice that you demand, and still say that the demands of justice were met out? The story keeps changing and the requirements keep shifting. It is as if it does not look anything like Penal Substitution anymore!

Forgiveness is provided for by the Cross.

Yes, the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith! Not of works! That salvation cannot be earned! Yet you teach that this is wrong! God must have your sin "paid for" or He will not save. If it is a "payment" then Jesus "earned" it! It is not salvation by grace, but salvation by the merit of payment! If it is given to us, we "deserve" heaven. God does not save because he is Merciful or Forgiving... but because He (the devil, or the non-entity you personify and call "Justice") was paid off! Penal Substitution says so!

Yes, justice is satisfied. You would have a forgiveness where justice is not satisfied; in such a case God would not be just in forgiving the sinner; and you would have a different complaint.

If I go to Court for speeding, and I appeal to the judge to have mercy and forego the punishment due to my crime and they say "No!" The fine is $200.00"! I pay that $200.00 and "justice" is satisfied. I do not need the mercy or forgiveness of the judge. In fact, any such indication of mercy or forgiveness from that judge after I pay that fine, are empty words. They showed me no mercy, and since I paid it, I do not need to be forgiven because justice has been satisfied!

Since the Bible says that God shows mercy, and that God forgives, and that the Bible NEVER says that a single sin was "paid for" on the Cross, it is a clear indication that Penal Substitution has no place in Scripture or the Gospel!

I feel really bad for you; because Penal Substitution is the gospel by which we are saved: and in rejecting it, you are rejecting salvation itself. See Jeremiah 13:17.

This is pure heresy! Instead of posting Scripture references that have nothing to do with your argument as you do, show me the passages that say.... "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart in Penal Substitution, you shall be saved..."! You are claiming that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, no one had the Gospel!

This is Cult territory, requiring man-made doctrines to be essential to salvation!

 

[John Caldwell]

For a doctrine to be true, it must be in the Bible. Philosophy and human invention is all you have. Yes, it is "fruitless activity" to say that Penal Substitution is Biblical. Don't check it out... the truth will hurt your pride!

Very true.

Ultimately the issue is those who hold and apply human philosophy that is not only absent from but contrary to Scripture. Given the amount of commentaries and “tools” out there people become “self-educated” disciples of whatever philosophy or “theology” speaks to them. They do not recognize, and therefore cannot separate, their philosophical approach to Scripture from Scripture itself.

Theology is the “study of God”, which can only be approached via Christ. PSA is just one example of “back door theology” which tries to approach God via philosophy (here a judicial philosophy). It is wrong, and it is in a way an evil because it takes so much away from Scripture and replaces it with systems and theories.

Biblical illiteracy is too wide spread in the western world. You would think that given the resources we have at our fingertips this would improve - but exactly the opposite has occurred because people look to whatever sits well with them (what ever they like) and disciple themselves under men and their theories. As long as they can provide a commentator who agrees with them they feel justified. But in the end the crux of their "theology" is their own choices and ideas.

 

[Candidus]

Very true.

Given the amount of commentaries and “tools” out there people become “self-educated” disciples of whatever philosophy or “theology” speaks to PSA is just one example of “back door theology” which tries to approach God via philosophy (here a judicial philosophy).

Well stated! "Back Door Theology" to describe the interjection of philosophy into theology is something I need to add to my vocabulary!

 

[John Caldwell]

Well stated! "Back Door Theology" to describe the interjection of philosophy into theology is something I need to add to my vocabulary!

Thank you. That actually was the center of Barth's theology (not that I follow Barth). He insisted that any attempt to know God except through the person of Christ is philosophy and not really theology.

The Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement seeks to know God by going around Christ and in so doing empties the cross from meaning. In fact, PSA has absolutely no dependency on the cross itself (the cross was expedient, not necessary, as long as Christ died in public on a tree).

But at the same time PSA is, like Calvinism, simplistic. It is easy to understand and it makes no demands of its adherents. I suspect that is why so many have clung to both.

 

[Candidus]

Thank you. That actually was the center of Barth's theology (not that I follow Barth). He insisted that any attempt to know God except through the person of Christ is philosophy and not really theology.

It is not a bad thing to agree with someone where you believe that they are right; it does not mean that you agree with them on everything! I do not agree with Roman Catholicism, yet I agree with them on the doctrine of the Trinity. I could agree a lot with Hitler's Nationalism, but not his Socialism and Fascism, or anything else he believed. He saved Germany from a Depression that was far worse than that in America. Such an agreement does not make me a Nazi or a sympathizer; I just agree with an idea.

Most people buy books, watch or listen to preachers that affirm their biases and beliefs. I like to listen and read people that do not affirm everything I believe. You never know.... I might learn something!

 

[John Caldwell]

Most people buy books, watch or listen to preachers that affirm their biases and beliefs. I like to listen and read people that do not affirm everything I believe. You never know.... I might learn something!

Outstanding point!

This is the difference between learning and indoctrination. There are people who will insist that God has given the church teachers....that is, the teachers who agree with them. Many want a summary, a belief given to them - not earned.

 

[Candidus]

I see no problem seeking out someone to get that itch in the ear scratched once in a while; but it is narrow to always seek that confirmation.

"The first one to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and cross-examines him." Proverbs 18:17.

 

[John Caldwell]

The word "propitiation" in the Bible speaks of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. It is found in several places; and looking up the word in a Bible Dictionary may in fact be in order.

The word propitiation speaks of men, through Christ, escaping the wrath to come. Christ bore our sins, became a curse for us. He shared in our infirmity and by His stripes we are healed. There are penal and substitutionary aspects to the atonement but the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (PSA) has nothing to do with propitiation or the Bible.

 

[Randy Kluth]

See Hebrews 10:14.

The word "perfect" in Heb 10.14 has to be understood in context.

Heb 10.11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

This is speaking of the legal process of redemption, which does not exclude the resurrection to immortality. Final perfection begins with a downpayment on our redemption, the gift of Christ's righteousness to us in our flawed bodies through the gift of the Spirit and through the gift of sonship.

But this process of redemption continues in the form of limited sanctification until we are fully sanctified, or made perfect, in the resurrection to eternal righteousness, which is perfection.

What you're doing is applying the final state of our redemption, ie the resurrection, to our current status, which is clearly imperfect.

The author of Hebrews is speaking of the legal process of redemption in which Christ alone accomplished the work of redemption. He enabled our complete sanctification by his work, which in turn led to these two steps I'm referring to--1st, a downpayment in imperfection and 2nd, a resurrection to immortality.

Perfection only comes later. The work of redemption was already accomplished to enable *both* these steps!

 

[DPMartin]

I like and use the one that goes back 2000 years to the Semitic writing style of the apostles. The style used here was a parallelism:

Acts 4:33
33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.

A parallelism is one defining the other. In this case, grace is power, with "great" denoting it is a parallelism. And confirmed by other apostles in the OP.

you don't have to have grace to have power. power in the world is anything but grace.

how power in this case was administered "by grace or through grace" but one doesn't define the other. the Lord God used power to bring the Pharaoh to his knees or wipe out all flesh on the face of the earth. neither had anything to do with grace.

and the power demonstrated was God's association to said apostles showing the message to be true. like Jesus said:


Joh_10:25　 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Joh_10:38　 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

also what you're reading is a translation into British English relating to the sensibilities and use of language in England in the 1600's or thereafter.

so you are incorrect in your thinking by a mile or so. what's with the parallelism jive anyway, two things are mentioned in a sentence and its now the same thing, really?

 

[justbyfaith]

You say that the demands of Justice are unbending and precise, and then change the rules when it became obvious that Jesus did not suffer the exact and precise substitution.

He did, in fact, suffer the exact and precise substitution.

It is as if all of us are allergic to bee stings but He is not allergic; so He went and took the stings of all of the bees that were putting us in mortal danger.

Yes, the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith! Not of works! That salvation cannot be earned! Yet you teach that this is wrong! God must have your sin "paid for" or He will not save. If it is a "payment" then Jesus "earned" it! It is not salvation by grace, but salvation by the merit of payment!

Yes, it is through Christ's merits that are applied to us by faith, that we are saved. His perfection is applied to our account; and our sin and iniquity was applied to Him as He went to the Cross and died to take the penalty for our sin. This is in fact the gospel of Jesus Christ; and to deny it is to reject salvation itself.

If it is given to us, we "deserve" heaven.

How do you figure?

God does not save because he is Merciful or Forgiving... but because He (the devil, or the non-entity you personify and call "Justice") was paid off! Penal Substitution says so!

Not the devil...God the Father. For He required justice and Jesus met the requirement on our behalf.

This is pure heresy! Instead of posting Scripture references that have nothing to do with your argument as you do, show me the passages that say.... "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart in Penal Substitution, you shall be saved..."! You are claiming that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, no one had the Gospel!

This is Cult territory, requiring man-made doctrines to be essential to salvation!

They did indeed have the gospel inasmuch as they understood what the word "propitiation" means...for this is included in the testimony.

The word propitiation speaks of men, through Christ, escaping the wrath to come. Christ bore our sins, became a curse for us.

If Christ bore our sins, how is that different from PSA? Does not the doctrine teach us that Jesus died in our place?

The word "perfect" in Heb 10.14 has to be understood in context.

Heb 10.11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

This is speaking of the legal process of redemption, which does not exclude the resurrection to immortality. Final perfection begins with a downpayment on our redemption, the gift of Christ's righteousness to us in our flawed bodies through the gift of the Spirit and through the gift of sonship.

But this process of redemption continues in the form of limited sanctification until we are fully sanctified, or made perfect, in the resurrection to eternal righteousness, which is perfection.

What you're doing is applying the final state of our redemption, ie the resurrection, to our current status, which is clearly imperfect.

The author of Hebrews is speaking of the legal process of redemption in which Christ alone accomplished the work of redemption. He enabled our complete sanctification by his work, which in turn led to these two steps I'm referring to--1st, a downpayment in imperfection and 2nd, a resurrection to immortality.

Perfection only comes later. The work of redemption was already accomplished to enable *both* these steps!

I would only say that those who are of the world will pick up on your teaching and hold to it; while those who know the Lord will reject your teaching for the truth.

See 1 John 4:4-6.

For those who know the Lord and are taught to abide in Him through the anointing that is given to them (see 1 John 2:27) will understand that abiding in Him means that we do not commit sin (1 John 3:6); and that we are indeed able to abide consistently for ever (1 John 2:17).

 

[John Caldwell]

He did, in fact, suffer the exact and precise substitution.

Perhaps. But we cannot say because that is not in the Bible. We have Scripture to go on, not theories. What the Bible teaches is Christ shared in our infirmity (our sickness), became one of us and experienced the wages of sin (death) for us so that we would have life - NOT so that we would escape the consequences of sin but so that we would live even though we die (physically). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

I understand the appeal to all of these theories and structures. But in the end it just sounds like those who hold them are saying Scripture itself is not enough.

Using your illustration of stings - it is like that except we are still stung and we still die, just as Jesus was stung and died. But Jesus did not deserve the sting and was vindicated by God, having victory over the hive. We have that victory in Him.

My main concern is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because it is a dangerous doctrine that empties the cross of any value. It is "backdoor theology". If it were invented today rather than in the 16th century I doubt any would buy the myth. But having been around for centuries, people adhere to tradition even though we have evidence in Scripture it is false (they twist Scripture to allow their tradition).

 

[justbyfaith]

Perhaps. But we cannot say because that is not in the Bible. We have Scripture to go on, not theories. What the Bible teaches is Christ shared in our infirmity (our sickness), became one of us and experienced the wages of sin (death) for us so that we would have life - NOT so that we would escape the consequences of sin but so that we would live even though we die (physically). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

I understand the appeal to all of these theories and structures. But in the end it just sounds like those who hold them are saying Scripture itself is not enough.

Using your illustration of stings - it is like that except we are still stung and we still die, just as Jesus was stung and died. But Jesus did not deserve the sting and was vindicated by God, having victory over the hive. We have that victory in Him.

My main concern is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because it is a dangerous doctrine that empties the cross of any value. It is "backdoor theology". If it were invented today rather than in the 16th century I doubt any would buy the myth. But having been around for centuries, people adhere to tradition even though we have evidence in Scripture it is false (they twist Scripture to allow their tradition).

I am waiting for the definition of PSA in the other thread. I think that we should not derail this thread but pick up the discussion over there.

How does the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement necessitate the Cross?